EPTLord of the Rings Mafia
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
TranceStorm
1616 Posts
| ||
|
TranceStorm
1616 Posts
Given this, however, this plan would probably only be effective for the first few 'passes' and perhaps near the end of the game when town circles become more clear. The risk after the first few days that the person holding the ring is killed, or has the ring stolen (which is a possible role according to the OP) makes the plan ineffective. Therefore, I think that such a plan should work for the first 2 or 3 days to confirm at least one or two people. Any thoughts or ideas about this? I haven't fully fleshed this out yet (i.e. the possibility of fake claims is strong), but its probably a better discussion than the arbitrary finger-pointing going on at the moment. | ||
|
TranceStorm
1616 Posts
On September 17 2011 13:37 chaos13 wrote: Nope. The entire content of his post was all based on game mechanics. Game mechanics reveal zero about a player's alignment, so if you give people town cred for posting that, the whole mafia team is going to do it and pretty soon you're completely fucked. ... Anymore discussion about this is wasted. Starting now look at some of the posts people have made, try to figure out what the intent of them is. Ask people questions. Scum hate being asked what they think of the alignment of their scumbuddies, they want to keep to the shadows. Let's not give them what they want. You make a fair point about how Radfield's post was more based upon game mechanics than any actual analysis. However, you follow this up with a summary of some rather obvious conclusions derived from the thread and some generic advice of your own! I would love to see you 'ask people questions' and figure out the intent of their posts as well. | ||
|
TranceStorm
1616 Posts
On September 17 2011 14:57 Cyber_Cheese wrote: I'm not sure if you realise it or not but that plan sounds awfully anti-town. How do we guarantee that even those 1-3 people can pass the ring in the first place? And even if they can, how does that confirm anybody? In this game, only people with roles that relate to the ring should bother searching for it secretly, and if the ring is passed it will either be the fruits of their efforts or a complete accident. As for the effects of the ring, there is no real way to find out, the only people that know are the ring bearers and mentioning that you have it/explaining what it does is virtually ensuring you get killed overnight in the hopes that you can't pass it. First, if the players in question cannot pass the ring, then the plan does not go into effect. A player only announces that they had the ring in the previous turn. If they can't pass it on, they stay silent and we are none the wiser. Second, given Radfield's argument that evil players probably don't have the mechanic to pass the ring (otherwise they would pass it amongst themselves), if we can get two successive passes, that would confirm at least one player. The danger of course is passing to a mafia player, but that probability initially is small. At any rate, I think it is pretty likely that the ring will worm into non-town hands (whether 3rd party or mafia) given that non-town players will constantly search and probe every turn. There's no way to comprehensively prevent them from getting the ring, therefore, why not get some benefit to it. Finally, another point that can be made is that the player who passes on the ring and reveals themselves can also reveal what the ring does. Given that every player already covets it, it would be nice to at least have that information. | ||
|
TranceStorm
1616 Posts
On September 17 2011 15:10 Ciryandor wrote: Why would they have to expose themselves? Given the fact that the Ring more likely than not provides some sort of power according to one's stature/role; any scum that have an interest in it would take the first opportunity to kill the bearer so they could claim it for their own in order to enhance their powers; and one could easily take it by force if someone claims it after getting passed on and not state that they passed it on as well. Your insistence in putting the ring-bearer as of now into the open with this strategy is something that merits scrutiny, it distracts the Forces of Good getting at less active players by attracting attention to you if you are town, but I have a vibe you have scummy tendencies. I divided your posts into three parts. (1) My point is that the only time a person ever claims is if they have passed the ring on to another player. They don't reveal who that other player is. The mafia don't know who that second player is. (2) Sorry. I don't quite understand what you are getting at here. You wouldn't claim that you just got the ring. The key is that if two successive passes are done - then we have two players who can confirm each other. (i.e. player 1 says that he did pass it to player 2 on turn x and player 2 confirms this). (3) At least my plan is generating important discussion compared to the silly banter thats currently going on. If someone else would like to generate serious discussion, I would invite them to do so. | ||
|
TranceStorm
1616 Posts
But, wouldn't it be a good idea to set the rule that if a player does ever pass on the ring, they reveal its powers? We already know that everyone wants the ring (both town and non-town) so I think it would be beneficial to town discussion to know the ring powers. (if they don't change like you fear they might). | ||
|
TranceStorm
1616 Posts
On September 17 2011 15:36 Cyber_Cheese wrote: So basically you want people to say "I had the ring guys, I managed to pass it off, but I'm not saying to who" and maybe list it's effects? We can't be sure evil players can't pass the ring, and if the person who claimed to have got rid of it was telling the truth or not. There is way too much uncertainty, and I believe only a non-town party would be trying to push a bad plan to get the ring Unless you can come up with a really good reason you care so much about the ring bearer ##Vote TranceStorm I don't understand why someone saying 'I had the ring guys, I managed to pass it off, but I'm not saying to who' would be that harmful. If they do so, they can also reveal what the ring does which reduces much of the speculation about what the ring actually does and how it affects the game. I agree that there is uncertainty. That's why I dropped the whole 'chain' part. I see that it is far too risky and I assumed to much. But having one player (who can choose to do this or not and specifically when they want to do so as well) claim after passing the ring on and telling the town about the ring's effects would help. Of course, this would cause alot of scrutiny, but that would be no different from when any other person claims a role. And if you believe that I'm scum, that's fine, but you would be making an incorrect choice. In the end, it was simply an idea I had to bounce around ideas. Did our discussion harm the town? No it didn't. | ||
|
TranceStorm
1616 Posts
On September 17 2011 15:43 GreYMisT wrote: I think that the powers of the ring should be treated sort of like a DTs checklist from what I understand. Keep your checks hidden until you fill its nessesary to come out to the town as a DT and provide nessesary information. Likewise with the ring. keep the fact that you have/had it hidden, but If the town enters a situation where that knowledge would be helpful, reveal it with the knowledge that you now have a giant target painted on your head. Hmm. Valid points, but I think the reason why the DT's stay hidden is because they retain their power (i.e. they can continue using their power and don't reveal themselves until at the last moment). However, with the ring holder - once they give it up, they can't use that power again. That means that the ring's power can be revealed without too much consequence. Anyways, off to sleep for me, I'll deal with the complaints and criticisms tomorrow. :o) | ||
|
TranceStorm
1616 Posts
On September 18 2011 02:24 iGrok wrote: Greymist's thing is not something to lynch for, but it is something to remember in the future. But he is someone to keep an eye on. I think whoever said WBG is probably gollum with a post restriction is right. But Drazerk has my biggest suspicions today, and lynching him will also give us the most information so far, both about greymist and the others who jumped on him. So, ##Vote Drazerk This is iGrok's only contribution to the thread at the moment. Having played with iGrok in one game before, he was much more active at the beginning of the game and tried to reason his votes better than this (he was godfather though haha). Nevertheless, I would love to hear more from you, iGrok about your thoughts about what is going on. Currently, he seems to be slipping by relatively unnoticed. | ||
|
TranceStorm
1616 Posts
On September 19 2011 00:25 xtfftc wrote: Most of the lynch targets we have at the moment are the typical loud-mouthed /sloppy townies that tend to get lynched on Day 1 while mafia keeps a low profile. More importantly, because mafia isn't put under any pressure whatsoever and therefore doesn't reveal any information that might be useful to us in the process. So no, I don't want to pick someone random. I said that I'd rather pick a random player out of the remaining 27 than one of these 3 because lynching them would give us absolutely nothing. I can't vote for Jackal for his ring idea, sorry. I will start reviewing the case against DrH and I didn't see anything new from WBG to change my initial poistion on him. And I would like to apologise for not being as active as I should have today. I have finally assembled my PC and will play properly from now on. And I hope that you will take into account that I mentioned that I'm moving to another country before roles were assigned. Nevertheless, in Day 2 we should pay specific attention to those who didn't post a lot on Day 1 but become more active during Night 1 to hit the 5 posts per cycle quota. This post rang so many alarm bells in my head. First off, its so incredibly neutral. In the first paragraph, you state a generic statement that doesn't mean very much. And your defense of your earlier quote still doesn't make any sense, 'rather pick a random player out of the remaining 27' is still a random pick. The next paragraph is killer, you articulate why you can't vote for certain people and justify your vote for WBG with little to no justification at all. It provides nothing of your analysis of them and nothing of your thoughts of your thread. It makes me think that you really don't want to reveal your thoughts on the thread. Finally, you apologize when there is literally 0 pressure at you at all. If what you say is true, that's fine, you would simply come back and post more on day 2 and the following days and people wouldn't be too suspicious of that. Why would you apologize for something which hasn't even been picked up on? I expect far more activity from you in the coming days as you say that you will do, but for the moment I FOS xtfftc. Given that i probably can't lead a lynch on you today, I will rather vote for a more fitting candidate today and make sure that I keep an eye on you. | ||
|
TranceStorm
1616 Posts
Starting with WBG, his behavior has been quite erratic and he is attacking a large number of people. Nevertheless, I think he is making some reasonable arguments through the last few pages - pointing out suspicious behavior and errors in certain people's logic. Jackal has made a blatantly incorrect statement which has been caught out and he hasn't made a move to defend himself either. This is very troubling as well - but, it could simply be a mistake on his part where he failed to recognize the rules of the game. Nevertheless, at least what distinguishes him from prplhz is that he gives some justification for his vote. What I dislike most about prplhz's vote is that he never actually justifies why he is voting for Jackal. Look at his vote post, he says: also i'd like jack to do some scumhunting 'cause he's apparently also a veteran of sort. since this drh thing is going nowhere i'm gonna switch to jack He follows up later with a defense of himself in which he says: "i'm saying i think that jack is scum and that's why i'm voting him but i'm very open to the possibility that he isn't". Very indecisive. Jackal's play has been extremely dodgy as well, but I think prplhz is the most probably scum. #Vote prplhz | ||
|
TranceStorm
1616 Posts
On September 19 2011 04:20 prplhz wrote: in case i didn't make it clear i thought that drh could do better and he was acting weird, that's why i voted him first. when that didn't catch on too well i switched to jack, another person who i thought should be doing a lot better. think it's too late for me to move my vote so i doubt i'm gonna do that. i have attacked just about 1 guy and only said that 3 people were scummy, i'm sure you can find other people who have thrown more accusations around 'cause that's not really too bad. i think most of all this voting me is because cyriander suddenly came out of nowhere and said i was a good guy and apparently i'm his pal or something, but you should really be questioning him instead 'cause that's very weird day1 after a couple of posts from me that i agree could be interpreted as scummy ... but this is too late and something that can be done tomorrow. i think people should switch their votes to wbg me and jack. i also want to tell sandroba and palmar that i have the eru-iluvatar-given ability to instantly kill them at my will if they don't start posting. You made a long analysis to justify why you voted for Dr. H. Then you changed to Jackal (after he had already received a couple of votes) saying that you wanted to pressure him. There is still no justification at all for you vote. Considering that you had already shown that you were willing to give analysis on other people, I find your vote super suspicious hence my vote. Now you say that it's too late for you to move your vote. You still haven't justified your vote at all, and are basically admitting that you didn't have one in the first place. | ||
|
TranceStorm
1616 Posts
| ||
|
TranceStorm
1616 Posts
You said "wrong thread -.- sorry" when you edited your defense post. That clearly is a lie, isn't it? | ||
|
TranceStorm
1616 Posts
On September 19 2011 07:29 prplhz wrote: @trancestorm why am i suddenly not good enough for you, why am i not still a better target for lynch than erandorr? you were one of the last votes on me too and now you're one of the last votes on erandorr, both of them with very unconvincing reasonable. it seems like you're just sheeping along. Ok, I will explain myself. At the moment that I had voted earlier, you were the best candidate out the three that were presented (WBG, you, and Jackal). I presented my case on why you were the best lynch candidate at the time. I still believe that some of your actions were scummy, particularly your initial vote for Jackal without much justification and your later refusal to back off of him - but now that a much better candidate has been given, clearly I should switch to him. I could say the same about you sheeping along as well. When you were holding your vote on Jackal, you said that you doubted that you would move it off. Now that a 'better candidate' has been found, you've moved off as well. | ||
|
TranceStorm
1616 Posts
On September 19 2011 09:05 jcarlsoniv wrote: That was sort of the last nail in the coffin. If there were any people on the fence before that, the edit pushed them over the edge. But the bandwagon started before the edit. It's what pushed me to vote for him. I thought he was a better lynch choice than the other 3 options because he botched his defense up so badly and edited. It made me think that he had written something that he was trying to cover up. In hindsight, clearly he panicked or something after getting accused but I didn't have that luxury when voting. | ||
|
TranceStorm
1616 Posts
On September 19 2011 09:57 wherebugsgo wrote: The one that involves you telling people to give me the ring day 1 (when it's outlined in the OP that the ring may only pass hands at night) and also to lynch me at the same time, coupled with the fact that there were likely multiple scum on my wagon, meaning if I were to receive the ring (and not die) and then be lynched the ring would be sent to one of my voters. AKA scum. That case. I would like to know why you said that as well Jackal. Did you not read the OP or something? | ||
|
TranceStorm
1616 Posts
I suppose your primary complaint against me is that I am making a large deal out of a number of smaller things. However, that is naturally what analysis does. When you analyze another player, you take into consideration what their motives are for saying each and every thing. Therefore, little things do get blown up all the time because analysis is designed to extrapolate larger things from a person's small behavior. Sometimes its spot-on, other times it misses the mark completely (i.e. the Errandor lynch which I bought into incorrectly). To say that someone is acting scummy because they are making large deals out of small things is not a valid statement. The reason why I suspected you in the first place was because you were being overly neutral and apologizing for lack of activity (which is something I always find suspicious). However, just like I said in my original post "expect far more activity from you in the coming days as you say that you will do", if you provide good analysis on Helvetica and Chaos13, then my suspicion will definitely decrease. Finally, you accuse me of bandwagoning onto an easy target of Errandor - but that was because I believed that Errandor was a better lynch than any of the others due to his slip-up. Its funny how many people are coming out saying that "Obviously Errandor was a bad lynch blah blah blah" when the only voice of opposition at the time was (I think) Navillus. If I missed any of your points, please bring them up again. | ||
|
TranceStorm
1616 Posts
One of the things about him is that he doesn't contribute all too much in any of the games he plays - and I've taken a look through a few of his games where he was town. Furthermore, despite being really wishy-washy about all of the candidates in question, he did place doubts on Dr. H (not very strongly, but nevertheless he did express discomfort with Dr. H). Furthermore, Dr. H at one point specifically says "Vain is definitely being antagonistic and the fact that he slipped under the radar for such bad posting isn't a good sign." He's a curious case but I don't think he is scum. | ||
|
TranceStorm
1616 Posts
You really have been tunneling me all game, so I will respond to some of your arguments. I made a bad plan, I get it. We've already established that. It was an idea I had and I asked for input from other people to improve the plan, instead, everyone decided to say the plan was a bad idea so I dropped it. Why are you focusing only on Dr. H's response to the plan? A dismissive response says absolutely nothing at all. For example, I am making a dismissive statement about your arguments; does that mean we are secretly cooperating with each other? There were many other responses saying that it was bad. That takes up a majority of your large post. Then you say that I jumped onto different bandwagons until I settled on the easy target of Errandor. Take a minute to think about that. If I were mafia, I would already know that prplhz was a townie and could keep my vote on him and pretend to be afk knowing that a townie would be lynched on day 1. After Errandor got lynched, I could stand around and shout "damn! I wasn't there to stop the lynch! Of course Errandor was innocent" (like many people did say). Moving from prplhz only increased the suspicion on me, something which a mafia would not do (which is why I don't suspect OriginalName either, since he moved in the same way that I did). | ||
| ||
